Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#61

Post by jbooth »

planfaster wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and clean…

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…

I'm sorry, are you proposing literally serfdom?

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#62

Post by cryoshon »

dazc wrote: post #40
noja wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem. How so?

They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a to…

Sounds like there should be two separate organizations, with one providing "get back on your feet" lodging and job placements, and another providing "palliative care" for the unfixable cases with food, medicine, drug counseling, etc.

I can see a lot of people I know having to use some help getting back on their feet if things really fell apart for them, and I can see them succeeding in doing so. I can't really see any of them reduced to abusing drugs to the point of homelessness.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#63

Post by JoeAltmaier »

bmelton wrote: post #60
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia). The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live. Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless. I don't think this plan…

> The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. I read it twice, and I didn't see anywhere in which planfaster suggested that the poor were stupid. Either I'm missing it, or you're reading in to something that isn't there. > Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless. I agree that the point of cities is inaccurate, but the problem is…

Poor are stupid: #3

Transporting as straw man: #2

Vacant homes across America are there, because there are no jobs there. Many of the homeless in the city may have actually come from those empty houses, abandoned with their upside-down mortgages and no jobs, hoping to find work.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#64

Post by yummyfajitas »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #49
yummyfajitas wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of bot…

> "Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing" What's the reason for dysfunction in the UK housing market then? It's perfectly legal to sell only housing over here (note that this graph is adjusted for inflation, people are spending roughly 4x the amount for a house compared to 1952 after correcti…

I'm confused by your link, which describes the price of a speculative investment rather than a consumption good. What dysfunction are you referring to?

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#65

Post by planfaster »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #59
planfaster wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…

The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia). The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live. Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless. I don't think this plan…

> The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting.

If you think that is insulting, try getting your ideas attacked through a straw-man argument - that's even worse. What most poor people do not understand, however, is that in order for them to live off welfare, somebody else is personally sacrificing their own efforts, labor, life, money that could be saved for their kids, just to pay for some guy who not only has no skills to help society in building wealth, but has a strong enough sense of entitlement to demand that someone help them survive while they get to pick where to live. I want to help all the poor, but being mathematically literate I know this can only work if we put these poor people in a situation where instead of takers, they be producers.

> The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live.

You are over-simplifying it to the point of being ahistorical. No, actually cities came about because farmers increasingly wanted to take their chances at being entrepreneurs or employees in an industrial setting. So if you fail at your chance of making it in the city, then you should go back to a farm. Sounds logical to me. That way everyone can keep trying to make it in the city without being a burden on anyone else.

> And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia).

This reads like an emotional sophism to make me feel bad about giving the poor food and shelter that they can actually pay for themselves. Again, think back to our recent past pre Industrial age (1850 and before). Most people were farmers. That's the default. Living in the city, where you can't produce your own food and have to rely on other people's services (which costs money) is not the default. If everyone in the country can never be poorer than owning a small self-sufficient farm where one can live by oneself without needing money, then can you better point at the part of this plan that makes you be against it? I honestly see no problems here, not even an inkling of disrespect towards the poor.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#66

Post by logfromblammo »

dazc wrote: post #40
noja wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem. How so?

They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a to…

That sounds to me like using the "longest job first" scheduling algorithm in your OS--very inefficient, and certainly not fair.

If every homeless person had an estimate attached for the amount of effort required to return them to mainstream society, you have made the problem of allocating caseworkers to people analogous to CPU resources for a process. An automated algorithm could make the perfectly rational decision to prioritize someone who just needs to find some affordable housing quickly over someone who needs a few weeks in rehab, a psych counselor, vocational retraining, lifestyle interventions, etc.

Select a fair algorithm, and you get a fair allocation of limited resources, without having to "nice" any process so far down that it never actually gets to execute.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#67

Post by planfaster »

jbooth wrote: post #61
planfaster wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…

I'm sorry, are you proposing literally serfdom?

I don't know, you tell me.

If you receive a plot of farmland that you can live off of without any other citizen's help, and you don't owe anyone anything for having received that plot of farmland, then are you a serf?

Plus, after living in that farmland for a while, whenever you think you have the skills to be employed in the city, you are free to try again. But it would be illegal to be homeless in the city, so that if it doesn't work out, you'd have to go back to the farmland you own.

Is that serfdom? The answer is no, and contrary to your question, you are not really sorry you asked, you are just doing this coy exaggeration routine that people who aren't interested in engaging in argument but still want to poo-poo it do.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#68

Post by buro9 »

planfaster wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and clean…

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…

> You say you have been homeless. I'd like to ask you what you think of my idea: instead of giving the homeless shelter in the city, and having them drain resources from people who produce wealth, meanwhile not producing anything, why not give them a cheap house in a small farmland with some chicken or turkey, rabbits, a vegetable garden, etc?

I have been homeless, it's not something I just say.

I disagree with your entire post. It's based on this false assumption, "the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfare experiment".

Definition of a city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City "A city is a large and permanent human settlement.[1][2] Although there is no agreement on how a city is distinguished from a town in general English language meanings, many cities have a particular administrative, legal, or historical status based on local law."

Nothing in there mentioned wealth, or welfare. Remove that personal bias/motive from your proposal and your proposal very quickly falls apart.

That is before one would progress to the more offensive part of your argument: That those with money and wealth have more right to live in a city than those without. That those who work in lower paid industries have less of a right than those in higher paid industries.

It seems horribly convenient as a concept, that you could put the poor and homeless on buses and drive them out of your sight.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#69

Post by johnkpush »

A friend of mine was in a similar situation as Reay. He had no addictions, and no psychological problems, but ended up homeless.

He used his remaining 2k to purchase a 1 year membership at Chelsea Piers sports club. It turned out to be the smartest way he could have used that money. Chelsea Piers is an enormous facility with 20 showers, locker room, huge lounge area with Wifi and couches. He hung out there for most of the day, worked out, learned php, took some freelance web development gigs, got enough experience and knowledge to eventually move on to a full time programming job. In a few months he saved enough money for an apartment in Queens.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#70

Post by pavel_lishin »

johnkpush wrote: post #69

A friend of mine was in a similar situation as Reay. He had no addictions, and no psychological problems, but ended up homeless. He used his remaining 2k to purchase a 1 year membership at Chelsea Piers sports club. It turned out to be the smartest way he could have used that money. Chelsea Piers is an enormous facility with 20 showers, locker room, huge lounge area with Wifi and couches. He hung out there for most o…

Where did your friend sleep?
Post reply on HN